Shaun Metcalf back in NRL

[Ghibli]

An opinion piece from the ABC.net.au site
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/56554.html

 

[Coxy]

An opinion piece from the ABC.net.au site
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/56554.html

well bloody said!

 

[mrslong]

Good ole' Melinda TR. Always counted on to sniff out this kind of story.

 

[Anonymous person]

my favourite part about the articles about him is where they deliberately leave out Metcalfs age when the 'incident' occurred, but always make a point about the girl being only 15.

they always go along the lines of "Shaun Metcalf, 23, lured his pregnant 15 year old girlfriend...". its never "Shaun Metcalf, who was 16 at the time, lured his pregnant 15 year old girlfriend...".

gotta love journalists.

 

[Coxy]

His age at the time is irrelevant, and in fact makes his actions even more reprehensible that he could premeditate such a thing at that age.

 

[Anonymous person]

His age at the time is irrelevant, and in fact makes his actions even more reprehensible that he could premeditate such a thing at that age.

its not irrelevant though. he was 16, thats still a kid. it makes it SLIGHTLY less bad than if it was a 20 year old, wouldnt you agree?

and it makes it a lot less bad than the way they make it out as though he was 22-23 and she was 15.

 

[dukey]

His age at the time is irrelevant, and in fact makes his actions even more reprehensible that he could premeditate such a thing at that age.

its not irrelevant though. he was 16, thats still a kid. it makes it SLIGHTLY less bad than if it was a 20 year old, wouldnt you agree?

More importantly than that is the fact that the journalists are skewing the story to make him sound like a paedophile. He's not guilty of that. Stick to the facts, media.

 

[Coxy]

His age at the time is irrelevant, and in fact makes his actions even more reprehensible that he could premeditate such a thing at that age.

its not irrelevant though. he was 16, thats still a kid. it makes it SLIGHTLY less bad than if it was a 20 year old, wouldnt you agree?

No! The fact a 15 year old could so violently attack someone and try and kill their unborn baby boggles the mind!

You're trying to tell me that those 10 year olds that killed a toddler in Britain is "slightly less bad" than an adult doing it because they're kids?!?!

 

[Anonymous person]

You're trying to tell me that those 10 year olds that killed a toddler in Britain is "slightly less bad" than an adult doing it because they're kids?!?!

yep.

when a baby craps its pants its a fair bit more acceptable than when a 10 year old does it, isnt it?

 

[Coxy]

You're trying to tell me that those 10 year olds that killed a toddler in Britain is "slightly less bad" than an adult doing it because they're kids?!?!

yep.

when a baby craps its pants its a fair bit more acceptable than when a 10 year old does it, isnt it?

[icon_lol1. [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1.

That'll do me. You just compared toilet training to brutal torture and murder of a toddler.

By 10 you have a good understanding of what's right and wrong. And you'd know full well taking a 4 year old out and brutally bashing and beating him and leaving him dead on the railroad tracks is wrong.

And by 16 you know full well that kicking a pregnant girl in the stomach to try and force an abortion is wrong, grotesquely wrong.

Age is no excuse and it boggles my mind that you believe it is. Makes me wonder what atrocities you committed as a child/teenager that you want to have excused.

 

[dukey]

By 10 you have a good understanding of what's right and wrong. And you'd know full well taking a 4 year old out and brutally bashing and beating him and leaving him dead on the railroad tracks is wrong.

And by 16 you know full well that kicking a pregnant girl in the stomach to try and force an abortion is wrong, grotesquely wrong.

Age is no excuse and it boggles my mind that you believe it is. Makes me wonder what atrocities you committed as a child/teenager that you want to have excused.

In regards to the Jamie Bulger case, I think it's acceptable to speak in the defence of the two boys. At the age of ten, of course they knew what they were doing was wrong, but it's debatable that they understood the severity or consequences of their action. For example, the police found batteries in his mouth, indicating that maybe the kids thought of him as a toy and genuinely believed he'd come alive again if they just replaced the batteries.
But that's a completely different discussion. At age 16, when you kick a girl in the abdomen to try and force a miscarriage, you know exactly what you're doing. It's as bad as a 32 year old doing it. However, as I said before, I resent the fact that the media are trying to portray him as a paedophile.

 

[Coxy]

By 10 you have a good understanding of what's right and wrong. And you'd know full well taking a 4 year old out and brutally bashing and beating him and leaving him dead on the railroad tracks is wrong.

And by 16 you know full well that kicking a pregnant girl in the stomach to try and force an abortion is wrong, grotesquely wrong.

Age is no excuse and it boggles my mind that you believe it is. Makes me wonder what atrocities you committed as a child/teenager that you want to have excused.

In regards to the Jamie Bulger case, I think it's acceptable to speak in the defence of the two boys. At the age of ten, of course they knew what they were doing was wrong, but it's debatable that they understood the severity or consequences of their action. For example, the police found batteries in his mouth, indicating that maybe the kids thought of him as a toy and genuinely believed he'd come alive again if they just replaced the batteries.

HAHAHA, you had me going there for a moment!

But that's a completely different discussion. At age 16, when you kick a girl in the abdomen to try and force a miscarriage, you know exactly what you're doing. It's as bad as a 32 year old doing it.

Exactly.

However, as I said before, I resent the fact that the media are trying to portray him as a paedophile.

Not sure what the laws are in NZ, but in QLD he would be charged with statutory rape as the girl was under 16.

EDIT: Confirmed, they have the same laws as us. So he was also guilty of statutory rape. So he's a child sex offender too.

 

[Nashy]

He was under 18, so doubful a stat rape charge would come from it.

 

[Coxy]

He was under 18, so doubful a stat rape charge would come from it.

Probably, because courts in NZ are as pussy as here. But to the letter of the act, he'd be chargeable with that offence.

 

[Porthoz]

I do agree that age does make a difference to a degree, because teenagers often do not comprehend the potential consequences of their actions. This type of premeditated murder attempt has no age excuse though!

Anyway, isn't it clear that rehabilitation of the crim is more important than anything else, including the wellbeing of his victims? [icon_shady

 

[Kimlo]

I don't think there's much difference at all between being 16 and 23 in regards to what he did but there is a difference, even if very slight.

My issue with that article is the same as AP, they're making it out as if he was 23 when he did this that is a HUGE difference, not necessarily for what he did but a 23 year old getting a 15 year old girl pregnant is a massive difference from a 16 year old and a 15 year old.

 

[Coxy]

I do agree that age does make a difference to a degree, because teenagers often do not comprehend the potential consequences of their actions. This type of premeditated murder attempt has no age excuse though!

Anyway, isn't it clear that rehabilitation of the crim is more important than anything else, including the wellbeing of his victims? [icon_shady

Absolutely.

Regards,
Terry "Crims are my life" O'Gorman
Vice President of the Queensland Council for Criminal Apologism.

 

[Kimlo]

EDIT: Confirmed, they have the same laws as us. So he was also guilty of statutory rape. So he's a child sex offender too.

[icon_lol1. Child sex offender.....
I know you hate the guy but you are being ridiculous.
16 year olds having sex with 15 year olds happens all the time, ALL THE TIME.

Sure the law might call it rape but common sense would tell you a 16 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old isn't "rape", it's a normal thing that happens in the world.